Shri Krishna Chandra Patidar,, Ujjain v. The I.T.O., Ujjain

ITA 585/IND/2009 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 58522714 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ALEPP7070J
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 585/IND/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant Shri Krishna Chandra Patidar,, Ujjain
Respondent The I.T.O., Ujjain
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 11-02-2010
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 18-12-2009
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.584 TO 587/IND/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1998-99 TO 2001-02 KRISHNA CHANDRA PATIDAR PROP. SANJAY KRISHI UDYOG VILLAGE MAULANA TEH. BARNAGAR DISTT. UJJAIN (MP) (PAN ALEPP 7070 J) ..APPELLANT V/S. ITO-2(2) UJJAIN ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN SR. DR ORDER THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE DIFFE RENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-UJJAIN DATED 9.10.2009 ON THE GROUNDS AS DE TAILED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS NOBODY IS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SMT. APARNA KARAN LD. SR. DR IS P RESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 18.1 2.2009 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY AND WERE FIXED FOR HEARING F OR TODAY I.E. 11.2.2010 FOR WHICH REGISTERED NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 2 4.2.2010 ON THE ADDRESS AS PROVIDED IN FORM NO.36. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED HIMSELF NOR MOVED ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITIO N. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS APPEALS T HEREFORE THESE CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LI ABLE FOR DISMISSAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION AND CANNOT BE KEPT PENDING INDEFINI TELY. MY VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: I) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 AND 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. C WT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT T HE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ON IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. III) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WH ICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOB ODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS TREATED 3 THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VI EW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES 1963. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED SR. DR ON 11.2.2010. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11.2.2010 !VYAS! COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE